In India, the only patent you can get is the initial "composition of matter" patent. These patents are typically obtained very early in the R&D process (right after the drug is discovered).
For most drugs you can't just give the drug to a patient, it has to converted to a salt (this is why most drugs have "hydrochloride" or "sulfate" after their name). The right salt to use is usually determined a few years after the drug is discovered. The company typically gets a patent on this as well.
Since India doesn't recognize patents other than novel "composition of matter" patents, Bayer can't rely on their formulation patent to extend their market exclusivity. The patent in question is NOT a new formulation, it's the original formulation. The patent in question would only extend their market exclusivity for a few years.
I looked up the drug in question and apparently it was patented in 1993. That's 20 years. Even if the second patent was filed in 2007 it's still quite more than "a few years".
In India, the only patent you can get is the initial "composition of matter" patent. These patents are typically obtained very early in the R&D process (right after the drug is discovered).
For most drugs you can't just give the drug to a patient, it has to converted to a salt (this is why most drugs have "hydrochloride" or "sulfate" after their name). The right salt to use is usually determined a few years after the drug is discovered. The company typically gets a patent on this as well.
Since India doesn't recognize patents other than novel "composition of matter" patents, Bayer can't rely on their formulation patent to extend their market exclusivity. The patent in question is NOT a new formulation, it's the original formulation. The patent in question would only extend their market exclusivity for a few years.